[Marxism] Re: A tactical debate

Marvin Gandall marvgandall at rogers.com
Wed Mar 10 21:49:38 MST 2004


1) If the Bush administration wasn't able to get the Europeans to
sanction the invasion with a UN resolution using all kinds of coercive
tactics, why do you suppose Kerry could have done so using sweet talk?

2) The important point about Bush Sr. is that he only got international
support in exchange for a commitment NOT to invade Iraq. US forces
stopped at the Iraq-Kuwait border. The Shias still consider this a
betrayal.

3) I agree worldwide public opinion would have swung as you suggest if
the UN had sanctioned the US invasion. Frankly, that was the outcome I
expected. I was surprised that the French, German, Russian and other
governments defied the Bush administration the way they did. I fully
expected them to capitulate at the eleventh hour and come up with a
resolution for war.

4) The big split between the early Bush admin, before it was tamed, and
everyone else wasn't over ends, ie. US-led OECD control of the world
economy and the isolation and punishment of small rogue states. The
difference, IMO, has always been over means, ie. the Kosovo method
(economic blockade, use of air power) which is safer and less costly vs.
Iraq/Vietnam method (massive commitment of ground forces), which is much
riskier and more expensive.

Marv Gandall



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom O'Lincoln" <suarsos at alphalink.com.au>
To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:05 PM
Subject: [Marxism] Re: A tactical debate


> Marvin replying to Lou:
> >>You seem to be suggesting that [Kerry's] dissembling means he might
have,
> like Bush, invaded Iraq. Against the strenuous objections of France,
> Germany, Russia, and China, the UN, and
> the opposition of a large part of his base?<<
>
> I would expect him to try to find some way to *involve* these other
forces,
> as Bush senior did in 1991, and then invade Iraq. He would have set
about
> laying the basis for this after 9/11, whereas Bush set about laying
the
> basis for unilateral action.
>
> The split in the ruling class, both in America and internationally,
wasn't
> for or against imposing direct imperialist control on Iraq. It was for
or
> against US unilateralism. In Australia where I live, most bourgeois
> anti-war types would have fallen into line quite quickly if the UN was
> involved.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>





More information about the Marxism mailing list